In Reply to: Re: communism does not work posted by Fergus Murray on January 14, 1997 at 01:03:31:
> > > I don't agree. Communism stand's for the idea that evryone is equal and should
> > > be treated that way. Well that wasn't the thing in the USSR. For a green world I think
> > > we have to practice socialism. Because in mind we should be free because the mind is
> > > endless. But we have to share equal> and take care of what the earth give
> > > cause that isn't endless. The capitlastic way of thinking is so foolish. They think that
> > > if you only work hard enough you could be rich. Well if one human beeing get rich someone
> > > else is getting poorer or the nature will be overused!!> > You are just plain wrong about that last bit, and everything
> > else in your post is leading up to it the entire thing is faulty,
> > people don't need to be poor at all, but we are not all equal and the
> > rewards for work done should be higher in the cases where the work
> > is more valuble, higher quality, or necessitates skills difficult to
> > learn. The reason that some people are rich and some people are
> > poor in a capitalistic society is not that some people are taking
> > more than their fair share it's that the buisenss practices of our
> > country's rich are devoid of any sembelence of morality. We don't
> > need to change the system, we need to do our best to keep
> > our fellow americans moral and humane.> The trouble is, that just doesn't work. There's too many arseholes out
> there, and too many of them are very good at "making" money. It's all
> very well saying that everything would be fine if people were nicer,
> but they're not. Our world is run largely by people who *aren't* nice,
> and have very little in the way of morals, but lots in the way of money,
> and it's highly unlikely that any of your efforts to just make them "moral
> and humane" are going to have any noticeable effect. Unfortunately,
> morality isn't a prerequisite to "good business sense" - in fact it tends
> to actively conflict with it - so the people with the money (which equates
> pretty closely with power) just aren't nice enough to guarantee that other
> people aren't kept in poverty by their practices. And there isn't any sign
> of them getting any more ethical, either.>
> - FergusFergus has hit upon the very reason why socialism or communism are such dangerous
idealogies. In free capitalism, government exists as a regulatory body. The courts
and congress enforce laws which are approved (generally) by the people. The government
does NOT control the means of production. By such a separation of powers, competition
keeps businesses more or less "honest" in the sense that they can't establish
monopolies etc. So if some (most?) are "arseholes," well I can always deal with
another one. In Socialism, however, the "arseholes" control the means of production
through government monopolies or outright government ownership. So you get inefficiency,
very rich government officials, and really bummed out proletariat comrades.And if I can buy a cheap computer that's easy to use, then what do I care if Bill Gates
is getting rich in the process? Why are socialists and communists so concerned about
other people getting rich?
Is it not possible to come up will a fantastic product and make lots of money by selling it?